“Like a Virgin? Teens Think So”
I enjoyed this post and thought that it was very informative and dealt with a very important topic. However, I cannot
agree with the reasons you state are behind the confusion over certain sex-related terms. You talk about how teens are confused when it comes to the meanings of the words “abstinence” and “virginity.” You claim that this is due in part to “vague language in sex education classes.” I would argue that the reasons are far more basic than how this subject is being taught. I think that the confusion arises because many students do not take their sex education classes seriously(see picture to the left). They look at them as jokes and disregard the information as unimportant or funny. I have experienced first hand the offhand manner in which students talk about sexual diseases and different sexual acts. Perhaps it is not what we teach that is the problem as much as it is how we teach. You also argue that “Abstinence . . . appears to be linked to the time frame in which sexual behavior occurs.” Yet, I do not see any statistics in your post that support that idea. I am not saying that there is no basis for that statement, but that you should always include facts that support your opinions.“Improving science edumacation in Louisiana”
I thought that this post was very well-written, interesting, and provocative: Three things I look for in any piece of writing. Yet, I felt that your argument was flawed in several areas. You state that Senator Vitter wants to give money for “a Louisiana Christian group to undertake a study of and to produce a report on ways to improve science education in Louisiana.” You go on to discuss how teaching creationism in the classroom is detrimental to the education of the students. If you look back at the quote, you will see that Mr. Vitter wants to fund a study of how teaching creationism mixed with evoluti
on(see image to the right) works in Louisiana schools. The keyword there is study. The money will not go toward teaching creationism on a state-wide level, but rather selecting a few schools and noting how the students respond to parts of the Bible being taught at their schools. You go on to claim that the Louisiana Family Forum wants to “replace the teaching of established, uncontested science” with creationism. It appears that you wrote that and then try to pass it off as the goal of the LFF. I am not sure if you were paraphrasing something from the LFF or simply making that up. Next time, quote directly so as to avoid possible confusion between your opinions and your facts. At the end of your post you say “I’m glad my kids aren’t going to school in Louisiana.” This seems like a rather insulting and unnecessary addition to your post. The one thing that I really agree with you on is the separation of church and state. You say that “science can be left to the scientists and religion to the churches.” Overall, I thought that your post was not as informative as it could have been and too full of opinions to be looked at as a fair commentary on the subject matter. However, I thought it was both entertaining and fun to read.
1 comment:
The title of your post was very straightforward and provocative compelling me to gain interest in your post. I thought your comments to each article were very beneficial and nicely worded. It is important to provide concessions prior to refutations and you did a satisfactory job of commending the article before addressing your concerns. I side with your opinion for the first post that the problem relies not in the content of what we teach but in the manner that we hold discourse. You also recommend that the author provide statistical evidence to support her claims, which is very important since she is writing in a scholarly atmosphere. However, I felt as if you also could have supported your refutation with statistical evidence rather than personal experience solely.
Some of my minor issues with your blog concerned its nature and your presentation of your subject. I found it was unnecessary that you spend discussion informing the reader that you are relatively new to the blogosphere atmosphere. Rather, it would have been relevant to inform your readers of why you chose to explore the domains of sex and religion; for instance, why is important to you or more generally, that you allocate time to this issues, in the first place? I also did not see it beneficial to add a link to the sites of which you found the articles; they only served as a distraction to the flow of your post. The link to the article itself is fine; however, I would have liked to see a link directly to your comments on the posts.
Overall, good job and great subjects.
Post a Comment